August 18, 2023, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Hamilton v. Dallas County, 21-10133, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Willett, J. (joined by Richman, Higginbotham, Stewart, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Wilson, Douglas, JJ.), Ho, J., concurring, Jones, J., concurring in judgment only (joined by Smith, Oldham, JJ.); Title VII, employment discrimination
    • Reversing 12(b)(6) dismissal of female correctional officers’ Title VII disparate treatment claim against county for policy that allows only male correctional officer to take off both weekend days while allowing female correctional guards to take off only one weekend day and one weekday. The Court overruled it precedent that allowed Title VII disparate treatment claims for only “ultimate employment decisions” (including hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, or compensating), “a phrase that appears nowhere in the statute and that thwarts legitimate claims of workplace bias.”
    • The Court repudiated its earlier line of precedent as to “ultimate employment decisions.” “Nowhere does Title VII say, explicitly or implicitly, that employment discrimination is lawful if limited to non-ultimate employment decisions. To be sure, the statute prohibits discrimination in ultimate employment decisions–‘hir[ing],’ ‘refus[ing] to hire,’ ‘discharg[ing],’ and ‘compensation’–bit it also makes it unlawful for an employer ‘otherwise to discriminate against’ an employee ‘with respect to [her] terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.’ Our ultimate-employment-decision test ignores this key language.”
    • The Court held, as to the days made available for days-off, “we have little difficulty concluding that they have plausibly alleged discrimination ‘with respect to [their] … terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.’ The days and hours that one works are quintessential ‘terms or conditions’ of one’s employment. Indeed, these details go to the very heart of the work-for-pay arrangement.” The Court also looked to the County’s former policy of allowing precedence for the preferred weekend days-off based on seniority as a “privilege” of employment, which was denied when the County changed to the sex-based system.
    • While the Court agreed that “Title VII … does not permit liability for de minim workplace trifles,” nevertheless, “whatever standard we might apply, it is eminently clear that the Officers’ allegations would satisfy it at the pleading stage.” Therefore, the Court left “for another day the precise level of minimum workplace harm a plaintiff must allege on top of showing discrimination in one’s ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.'”
    • Judge Ho fully concurred, writing separately to address the judges who concurred in judgment only. He defended the majority’s decision to leave for another day questions about how to define what would be the minimum workplace harm that would constitute actionable disparate treatment. “When longstanding precedent conflicts with plain text, we have to decide what’s more important: Restoring the text? Or resolving every unanswered question that restoring the text might present, before we do so? It’s a choice we must make, because overturning atextual precedent can raise a number of unanswered questions. But the existence of unanswered questions should not stop us from restoring text and overturning precedent.”
    • Judge Jones concurred in judgment only, as the judgment essentially is merely “a remand for further development in this decidedly unusual case.” But she decried the open question left by the majority. “The majority’s incomplete ruling fails for two reasons. First, it leaves the bench, bar, and employers and employees with no clue as to what this court will finally declare to be the minimum standard for Title VII liability. The majority holding amounts to this: we hold that speeding is illegal, but we will not say now what speed is illegal under what circumstances. … Second, I disagree with the majority’s claim to a “textual” reading of Title VII that purports to eschew materiality as a necessary basis of employer liability.”
  • The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Texas Health & Human Service Commission, 22-20459, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Higginson, Willett), jurisdiction, abortion law
    • Dismissing appeal of denial of preliminary injunction in suit challenging Texas abortion laws, as during the pendency of the appeal the district court entered an order dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
    • “To settle any doubt: The district court had jurisdiction to proceed on the merits of the case. An appeal from a grant or denial of a preliminary injunction does not inherently divest the district court of jurisdiction or otherwise restrain it from taking other steps in the litigation.”
  • AKD Investments, L.L.C. v. Magazine Investments I, L.L.C., 22-30602, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Wilson, J. (Duncan, Wilson, Mazzant, by designation), bankruptcy
    • Affirming bankruptcy court’s summary judgment in favor of creditor on debtor’s post-reorganization action to recoup alleged overpayment of the notes held by creditor based on bankruptcy court’s prior approval of financing transaction to pay off notes and avoid foreclosure.
    • The Court held that it must defer to the bankruptcy court’s reasonable interpretation of its prior order in its holding that the prior order was law of the case as to the amount owed by the debtor on the notes held by the creditor.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Mayberry, 22-10865, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Graves, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Henry, 22-10909, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of conviction and sentence for possession of a stolen firearm.
  • Covington v. City of Madisonville, 22-20311, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Engelhardt, Oldham), municipal liability
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s municipal liability claim arising from her ex-husband police officer’s false arrest of her after he had arranged to have methamphetamine planted in her vehicle.
  • Vecron, Ltd. v. Baltagi, 22-20385, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Engelhardt, J. (Wiener, Elrod, Engelhardt), default judgment
    • Affirming default judgment and denial of motion to vacate default judgment, holding that record showing proof of service and accompanying affidavit support dismissal.
  • U.S. v. Butler, 22-30280, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (King, Higginson, Willett), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 240-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.
  • Gonzalez v. Resendez, 22-40597, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Smith, Ho), prisoner suit
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of state prisoner’s § 1983 claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
  • Meridian Security Insurance Co. v. Murphy, 22-40811, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Smith, Ho), insurance
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of counterclaims by insured for breach of the duties of good faith and fair dealing, holding there was a reasonable basis for denial of the insured’s claims.
  • U.S. v. Arroyos, 22-50398, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Graves, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence based on the total quantity of methamphetamine involved in conspiracy, and not just the amount proved to have been sold by the particular defendant.
  • Brown v. Quian, 23-20083, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), qualified immunity
    • Affirming denial of motion to dismiss for qualified immunity.
  • Ogbodiegwu v. Kijakazi, 23-50109, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Smith, Ho), social security
    • Affirming dismissal of claim for disability benefits, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.